All my lenses are from Canon, so I've never owned any Sigma ones. Usually when I read posts about canon vs. third-party manufacturer lenses, many people say Canon ones (especially L lenses) will serve for a longer period of time and have a better resale value. Besides these points, can anyone here comment on Sigma's warranty and how good their repair centers are?

If Sigma makes a 135mm f/1.8 lens that is twice as sharp and twice as aberration free compared to the Canon 135mm f/2L, and if it costs up to $1,000 or less, it will be the most popular lens in the world. If it costs up to $1,500 then it will be the most popular lens in its category.

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens.

Erm...you do know, don't you, that Canon makes two 135 mm lenses? And that we're discussing the f/2 L version of the lens, not the f/2.8 soft focus version?

And, besides which. The 135 SF is an ancient design, yes, and it's intentionally designed with aberrations to be pleasingly dreamingly blurry. But you can dial in the amount of soft focus you want, including none at all. And, when you turn it all off, it's really a charming little lens, even if its image quality isn't in the same league as the L. I hardly think it's worth criticizing the lens the way you are, and comparing it with a $6,000 Great White is just plain silly.

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

Right because comparing a 7000$ dollar White-tele to a Sub-1000$ lens is a fair comparison.

Wow really? Ok. Here's a $750 Sigma 105mm Macro lens compared to the $1200 135mm L. That's 2/3rds the price of the Canon 135mm L, it's a cheaper lens that blows the Canon lens out of the water with no hint of blurry corners or a blurry mid frame. And it has Image Stabilization. I think that's more than a fair comparison.

All these incessant arguments about "IQ", when most people here will never approach the limits of the lenses they have!

Before anybody is allowed to post a lens IQ, colour, rendering, etc comment they should be forced to go see the conditions they are tested in. Bench tests are so far removed from real world use now most of this stuff is irrelevant. If you are using AF then that will have a far greater affect on the sharpness of your images than pretty much anything, assuming you are using two or three times the focal length as a shutter speed, you are on a very heavy tripod, working at one optimal aperture etc etc.

If you are not printing above 20" regularly, if you are using AF, if you are not using a tripod, if you are shooting in anything less than good contrasty light, if you are not shooting wide open, or stopped down, forget bench test resolution figures, they mean nothing.

Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/

P.S. After the debacle of Sigma's incompatibility issues, and more importantly, their refusal to stand behind their products and re-chip every single affected lens, I for one, will never buy a Sigma lens regardless of price, features or perceived value. I had a good friend who laughed at me when I got my 16-35 and 24-70, he said his six Sigma lenses cost less, I still use mine and they are worth pretty much what I paid for them ten years ago, his stopped working on his digital bodies and were scrap.

So you're saying that nobody will notice 3.5 stops of noise? Because that's what the addition of image stabilization wil give you when shooting an event. You know those indoor things with very low light where especially with a 135mm you have tons of unessesary shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. I guess everyone should just be shooting at iso 4800 instead of 400, because that's what you're saying doesn't matter. There's no difference after all. Yep. None. /sarcasm

Wow really? Ok. Here's a $750 Sigma 105mm Macro lens compared to the $1200 135mm L. That's 2/3rds the price of the Canon 135mm L, it's a cheaper lens that blows the Canon lens out of the water with no hint of blurry corners or a blurry mid frame. And it has Image Stabilization. I think that's more than a fair comparison.

What a stupid comparison, a lens that is 30%, longer and twice as fast, that is equivalent to comparing a 300 f4 and a 400 f2.8 and moaning about the price difference!

Why not compare like with like, say the $769 Sigma 105 Macro with the $869 Canon 100 Macro IS L (I actually got mine new from B&H for $785 on one of their silly sales ages ago)? A far more relevant comparison. Would I pay $100 for guaranteed future function and resale value, oh yes.

Quote

So you're saying that nobody will notice 3.5 stops of noise? Because that's what the addition of image stabilization wil give you when shooting an event. You know those indoor things with very low light where especially with a 135mm you have tons of unessesary shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. I guess everyone should just be shooting at iso 4800 instead of 400, because that's what you're saying doesn't matter. There's no difference after all. Yep. None. /sarcasm

No that is not what I said, but if you want to run with that, I'd be using a 70-200 f2.8 with IS in that situation as it would give me vastly more flexibility, secondhand MkI's are superb value, I'd lose a stop in dof (which I'd want anyway, see below) but get back that and a lot more with the IS. Having said that, in your scenario how slow the shutter speed goes normally becomes the issue and not because of camera shake, people move, having f2 and f1.8 is all very well in theory, in actual real life event shooting it isn't so good, groups of people don't stand in a plane either, the fast lens might help with AF, but shooting wide open at events doesn't normally work. So at poorly illuminated functions we shoot with flash to keep our dof deep enough and freeze our subjects, any variation and skill level, from straight on camera deer in the headlights incompetence to Neil Van Niekerk "black foamy thing" mastery; from a single AB800 in a corner to four ProFoto heads everywhere. If you are shooting as a pro, act like one.

So you say, what is the point of a 1.8? Well in my book nothing, we are talking 1/3 stop here, way too small to notice in dof terms, way too small to make a difference in exposure terms. Sigma have grabbed the headlines, and the attention of some impressionable folk. I am sure many will buy it and think it is the greatest lens ever, in physiological terms we are programmed to think whatever we purchase is the greatest thing ever or a piece of S___, and people want to love their purchase as it validates their decision making process and choice.

I doubt it will affect the resale value of the Canon 135 f2 though, and that, in my mind, is the way a product is valued.

My bottom line, even if it comfortably outperforms the Canon lens, as the Sigma 35 f1.4 seems to, I wouldn't buy one. Sure I'd like the Canon to be "better" but the IQ from it has never ruined a shot of mine, which was my original point about incessant IQ "conversations", but the real killer for me, from Sigma as a company, is they left thousands of owners with a worthless lens door stop, that, to me, is unforgivable.

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/

Not sure where this website came from...do you know this photographer? I congratulate her on her appreciation of the female form...but the site is a bit slow.

It came from the fact that I appreciate and spend more time looking for good photography than worrying about virtually irrelevant sharpness figures, I am not a gear head, measurbator or collector, maybe that is why I seem a poor fit for this place

No I don't know her. It just struck me that if you consider the near religious fanaticism so often displayed in Canon vs Sigma 50 f1.4 threads it comes as a wake up call when there is somebody out there shooting images we could all shoot, and she uses a $109 lens that most here would deride. But she does know light, and that, after all, is what so often makes a great picture.

I am not saying for one second there is never a need for the biggest or best, I was just trying to add a sense of reality and common sense. Most of us won't take better pictures because our lens has an extra 1/3 stop, or a few extra lpmm!

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/

Not sure where this website came from...do you know this photographer? I congratulate her on her appreciation of the female form...but the site is a bit slow.

It came from the fact that I appreciate and spend more time looking for good photography than worrying about virtually irrelevant sharpness figures, I am not a gear head, measurbator or collector, maybe that is why I seem a poor fit for this place

No I don't know her. It just struck me that if you consider the near religious fanaticism so often displayed in Canon vs Sigma 50 f1.4 threads it comes as a wake up call when there is somebody out there shooting images we could all shoot, and she uses a $109 lens that most here would deride. But she does know light, and that, after all, is what so often makes a great picture.

I am not saying for one second there is never a need for the biggest or best, I was just trying to add a sense of reality and common sense. Most of us won't take better pictures because our lens has an extra 1/3 stop, or a few extra lpmm!

Agreed! And please don't let anyone here, tell you that you are not a good fit for this place! So far only one person has attempted to tell me that, but he is quite wrong...and it's kind of amusing to watch him keep on trying.

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

Right because comparing a 7000$ dollar White-tele to a Sub-1000$ lens is a fair comparison.

Wow really? Ok. Here's a $750 Sigma 105mm Macro lens compared to the $1200 135mm L. That's 2/3rds the price of the Canon 135mm L, it's a cheaper lens that blows the Canon lens out of the water with no hint of blurry corners or a blurry mid frame. And it has Image Stabilization. I think that's more than a fair comparison.

All these incessant arguments about "IQ", when most people here will never approach the limits of the lenses they have!

Before anybody is allowed to post a lens IQ, colour, rendering, etc comment they should be forced to go see the conditions they are tested in. Bench tests are so far removed from real world use now most of this stuff is irrelevant. If you are using AF then that will have a far greater affect on the sharpness of your images than pretty much anything, assuming you are using two or three times the focal length as a shutter speed, you are on a very heavy tripod, working at one optimal aperture etc etc.

If you are not printing above 20" regularly, if you are using AF, if you are not using a tripod, if you are shooting in anything less than good contrasty light, if you are not shooting wide open, or stopped down, forget bench test resolution figures, they mean nothing.

Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/

P.S. After the debacle of Sigma's incompatibility issues, and more importantly, their refusal to stand behind their products and re-chip every single affected lens, I for one, will never buy a Sigma lens regardless of price, features or perceived value. I had a good friend who laughed at me when I got my 16-35 and 24-70, he said his six Sigma lenses cost less, I still use mine and they are worth pretty much what I paid for them ten years ago, his stopped working on his digital bodies and were scrap.

So you're saying that nobody will notice 3.5 stops of noise? Because that's what the addition of image stabilization wil give you when shooting an event. You know those indoor things with very low light where especially with a 135mm you have tons of unessesary shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. I guess everyone should just be shooting at iso 4800 instead of 400, because that's what you're saying doesn't matter. There's no difference after all. Yep. None. /sarcasm

I have to agree with the others about the poor comparison. At f/2.8, the Canon is sharper in the center, and the corners are much improved. Bump it up to f/4 and the Canon is vastly superior, while also having the flexibility of an additional stop of light by going down to f/2. So I'd much rather have the Canon (and as it turns out, I do).

If these new lenses actually happen and are all as good as the 35, wonder what Sigma's roadmap is for their bodies?

Well Sigma only makes bodies around the Foveon sensor with their current flagship being the SD1 Merrill. It is "only" an APS-C sized sensor and I think was originally sold for like $9000 though it is currently about $1800. Unless Sigma has a huge secret they have kept under wraps about making a full 24 x 36 mm sensor, they do not make a single camera that can fully utilize DG series lenses. They would be happy with all DC series if making lenses solely for their own line.

So it appears Sigma is still quite committed to being a third party lens line for the other major manufacturer bodies.

I agree that’s the case at the moment but just speculating for fun once they complete (whatever that might be) their Contemporary, Art and Sports lines what’s the next logical step I reckon a couple of new bodies. FWIW I really don’t care for the current design egon. so for me they have a lot of catch up but looking at the innovation going on with their lenses maybe they just have the taste for that?

I didn't realize anyone was criticizing the Canon 135 f/2. Mine is quite sharp everywhere, except the extreme corners wide open on a full frame. Even the extreme corners wide open on a crop camera are sharp. Again, the advantage a Sigma 135 f/1.8 would have, would be a fraction of a stop...and perhaps stabilization. I doubt it would be any sharper than the Canon...and instead likely perhaps a tad less resolution. The color might be better (i.e. warmer).

(Sorry to belabor the point over...but...) I do feel, that what is called for, are new focal length primes (and even zooms) that no one seems to be making...but maybe they won't ever get built?

Something like a 95mm f/0.9, and a 160mm f/1.4 or 1.6...would be nice. If Sigma, Tamron, or whoever...ever build anything close to these, their prices need not be much over $2.5k for the 95, and $3.5k for the 160. If they're high IQ, plenty of people would line up to buy them...even if there is no stabilization.

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

Right because comparing a 7000$ dollar White-tele to a Sub-1000$ lens is a fair comparison.

Wow really? Ok. Here's a $750 Sigma 105mm Macro lens compared to the $1200 135mm L. That's 2/3rds the price of the Canon 135mm L, it's a cheaper lens that blows the Canon lens out of the water with no hint of blurry corners or a blurry mid frame. And it has Image Stabilization. I think that's more than a fair comparison.

All these incessant arguments about "IQ", when most people here will never approach the limits of the lenses they have!

Before anybody is allowed to post a lens IQ, colour, rendering, etc comment they should be forced to go see the conditions they are tested in. Bench tests are so far removed from real world use now most of this stuff is irrelevant. If you are using AF then that will have a far greater affect on the sharpness of your images than pretty much anything, assuming you are using two or three times the focal length as a shutter speed, you are on a very heavy tripod, working at one optimal aperture etc etc.

If you are not printing above 20" regularly, if you are using AF, if you are not using a tripod, if you are shooting in anything less than good contrasty light, if you are not shooting wide open, or stopped down, forget bench test resolution figures, they mean nothing.

Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/

P.S. After the debacle of Sigma's incompatibility issues, and more importantly, their refusal to stand behind their products and re-chip every single affected lens, I for one, will never buy a Sigma lens regardless of price, features or perceived value. I had a good friend who laughed at me when I got my 16-35 and 24-70, he said his six Sigma lenses cost less, I still use mine and they are worth pretty much what I paid for them ten years ago, his stopped working on his digital bodies and were scrap.

So you're saying that nobody will notice 3.5 stops of noise? Because that's what the addition of image stabilization wil give you when shooting an event. You know those indoor things with very low light where especially with a 135mm you have tons of unessesary shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. I guess everyone should just be shooting at iso 4800 instead of 400, because that's what you're saying doesn't matter. There's no difference after all. Yep. None. /sarcasm

If your way of thinking is that skewed, consider the 60mm macro is as sharp as the 135L but you missing the whole reason someone buys the 135L, razor-sharpness @ f/2.

So yes, comparing a 900$ 135L to a 7000$ 200 f/2L is ludicrous, just as comparing the 135L to a macro, two whole different worlds.